Multiple Affiliations

> ... not possible ... to be associated with the SFC and SPI at the
> same time.

Might it be possible for SPI to have a list of project that are not
"associated" with SPI in the sense used above, but for which SPI
accepts earmarked donations and whose funds we spend out or forward to
another non-profit as instructed by the project in question? The
reasons for this would be that it would make it easier for people
whose employers have matching programs for SPI to make donations to
the project in question. It would also make clear that legal coverage
and financial services can be decoupled.
--
Barak A. Pearlmutter
Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
http://www.bcl.hamilton.ie/~barak/

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:26:36AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> "associated" with SPI in the sense used above, but for which SPI
> accepts earmarked donations and whose funds we spend out or forward to
> another non-profit as instructed by the project in question? The

I am not a tax expert, an accountant, or a lawyer, but if the
regulation exists, I expect it would be designed _precisely_ to
prevent this sort of activity. If I were the IRS, I would not want
my potential audit costs of non-profits to extend into audits of
_other_ non-profits to whom the first non-profit was forwarding
money. Indeed, that seems like the sort of shell game that would be
a boon to tax evaders and money launderers and such.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
Users never remark, "Wow, this software may be buggy and hard
to use, but at least there is a lot of code underneath."
--Damien Katz

On Tue October 23 2007 12:09:35 pm Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:26:36AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > "associated" with SPI in the sense used above, but for which SPI
> > accepts earmarked donations and whose funds we spend out or forward to
> > another non-profit as instructed by the project in question? The
>
> I am not a tax expert, an accountant, or a lawyer, but if the
> regulation exists, I expect it would be designed _precisely_ to
> prevent this sort of activity. If I were the IRS, I would not want
> my potential audit costs of non-profits to extend into audits of
> _other_ non-profits to whom the first non-profit was forwarding
> money. Indeed, that seems like the sort of shell game that would be
> a boon to tax evaders and money launderers and such.

Isn't this pretty much what the United Way (a very large charity in the USA)
does?

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:16:29PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Isn't this pretty much what the United Way (a very large charity in the USA)
> does?

Not exactly, as I understand it.

The United Way is a fund that then funds other funds, sometimes
operated by other organizations. Those organizations are usually in
themselves charities. But the way the finances work is not a
straight "passing on" of money from one charity to another. This is
why UW is able to soak up significant money in its own administrative
fees. Each UW in an area is independent, and there are several
interlocking corporations that do the actual handling of money.
Their finances are extremely sophisticated. Several people have
suggested that the true overhead to the charitable sector by having
the UW involved is much higher than stated, because the support of
the UW charity itself sucks money away from actual charitable
activities. That support is needed, however, because of the costs
involved in tracking and earmarking donations.

The UW of America is actually a trade association. It sort of works
like PBS -- every local UW is actually completely independent, except
that they have to agree to certain rules.

UW in Canada and in the US are structured slightly differently, so I
probably have significant details wrong.

Also, the UW of A was in considerable hot water a number of years ago
precisely because their executives spent rather more UW money on
being executives than people thought correct. Two of them ended up
convicted of various frauds.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun